Your statement is very interesting and thought provoking.
I'd like to know if it's true. It sounds like one of those things that are "to good to be true".
Is it possible that you're conflating the total of transportation pollution per capita with the part of it that has to do with driving to the grocery store for that?
Just napkin mathing it, it doesn't seem like it would be surprising in the least due to mass transport.
Take the cargo ship for instance. In looking up the numbers, a single large cargo ship can carry upwards of 20,000 20-foot long cargo containers each with a volume of ~1200 cubic feet. So that's 24 million cubic feet of storage. Break that down into pollution per item, it's going to be some value that's effectively zero.
And the same is going to be true for most other transportation and movement along the overall pipeline, which is all going to be done at a large scale to reduce costs. And then you enter the picture. You drive 15 miles there, and 15 miles back in your vehicle - to pick up 6 limes, a few sprigs of mint, and a bottle of rum. The cost of transport/mile/unit there is easily going to be orders of magnitude greater than any other part of the trip, and it's not hard to imagine it exceeds the entire cost of the rest combined.
15 miles to a store? What kind of people drive that far to pick up so few items? Perhaps doing the big shopping you can go that far, but I definitely buy more stuff than 6 limes when I drive that far.
Also, I wasn't comparing the cost of shipping lime from south america to europe, but I was comparing it with the cost of shipping limie from south america to vietnam to do the packaging and then back to europe to do the consuming which is more than double the pollution. You need to unload the ships, move the trucks to the places where people do the packaging, move the goods back into a ship, unload the stuff again, drive it all the way to other warehouses etc etc
> 15 miles to a store? What kind of people drive that far to pick up so few items? Perhaps doing the big shopping you can go that far, but I definitely buy more stuff than 6 limes when I drive that far.
When you think about it, most populated areas in the US are rural, sparsely populated areas. It may be 20 miles to the nearest store, and that store may only be a 7-11. I feel lucky to have found a nice spot in a rural area that is only 8 miles to the Walmart, and that really hurt recently with gas prices, still does.
But most population, isn't in rural areas. I've got a local specialty grocery store literally downstairs next to my condo, and a full grocery store three blocks away. "The average household traveled 3.79 miles to their primary grocery, even though the closest store was 2.14 miles way." (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/04/10/5-things-the-usda-lea...)
I think their point is not that there are people that far away from a store but that those folks generally make larger bulk purchases when they make the trip to and from the store.
People don't realize that bulk purchases require up front capital. Some people can't afford to buy more that what they need at the time, even if it'll cost more in the long run. This even includes things like the 24 or 36 pack of toilet paper
The closest grocery store to my house is an upscale store about 10 miles away. Next closest is the much cheaper Walmart which is about 12 miles away in a different direction.
I often have to make a 20 mile round trip just to get a gallon of milk.
A good rule of thumb is. If it's cheap, it didn't burn too much energy! A trip to the store is purely C02 expense of almost a dollar. A dollars worth of lime, probably has C02 expense in the range of almost 10 cents.
I'd like to know if it's true. It sounds like one of those things that are "to good to be true".
Is it possible that you're conflating the total of transportation pollution per capita with the part of it that has to do with driving to the grocery store for that?